SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
European Union – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. These two writ petitions, W.P.(C)-IPD-5-2022 & W.P.(C)-IPD-6-2022 have been filed by the Petitioner-the European Union, represented by the European Commission located at Brussels, Belgium. The Petitioner is seeking setting aside of orders dated 21st January, 2019 and 30th September, 2019, passed by the Controller General of Patents. Vide the said orders, two patent applications bearing nos. 11123/DELNP/2012 and 3466/DELNP/2013, filed by the Petitioner have been treated as `deemed to have been abandoned' under Section 21(1) of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter, `the Act').

Brief Chronology of events in W.P.(C)-IPD-5-2022

3. The Petitioner filed Indian application no. 11123/DELNP/2012 on 21st December, 2012 through its Indian patent agent, Mr. Guruswamy Nataraj (hereinafter, ` first patent agent'). The said application was titled `Method of Providing an Authenticable Time-and-Location Indication', the bibliographic details of which are set out below:

Priority Application No.EP 10166025.6
Earliest Priority Date15/06/2010
PCT International Application No.PCT/EP2011/058989
PCT International Filin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top